View Single Post
Old
04-04-2004, 07:34 PM
  #11
turnbuckle*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,724
vCash: 500
I hope you're not expecting anyone with a modicum of hockey knowledge to agree with any of your blathering, db23.

For about the 500th time you've declared in your "all knowing" manner that the 2003 draft group will be a flop.

First off - only a peabrain, or someone who is a redundant sheet disturber, would begin declaring a draft group to be a flop mere months later, and continue this contention ad nauseam all season long, even while the prospects are prospering right under your nose. Lapierre has arguably been one of the Q's top 5 forwards for the past couple of months, and has NHL potential written all over him. He has the size, speed, smarts, and defensive awareness to be in the big league for a long time if the improvement continues. If that makes him a bad selection at the end of the second round........


Has the 1998 draft crop not been proof enough that no one can predict the long-term future of draft picks after a few months? Nine months after the 1998 draft, Chouinard was still considered the top Hab prospect from that draft...Ribeiro was considered too small and too slow, and that judgement would remain until this season - six seasons later. In the spring of 1999 Ryder and Markov were still longshots at best to be NHLers, let alone impact players. Well; how wrong was everyone?

You can't seriously state (repeatedly I might add) on this board that you know Kastistsyn will be a flop. If there's one prospect from last year's first round that cannot yet be judged conclusively, it might well be Kastitsyn. I'm certainly not going to trust the opinion of someone who hasn't seen him play all season, that's for damn sure. You sit back, look at the fact that he only received limited ice time in the top Russian league with a coach well known for his preference for veterans, and assume he's a flop. Ridiculous logic.

I also get a kick out of your contention that a player is flopping because he finished behind two other teammates in scoring at a junior championship. I suppose you would have determined after the 1992 WJC that Michael Nylander (17 points)was a much better player than teammates Peter Forsberg (11 points) and Markus Naslund (10 points). Hell - Nylander was a third round pick while Forsberg was picked 6th overall. According to your logic, Forsberg thus should have become a flop. Never mind that Forsberg was second overall in tournament scoring (Kasty was third this year) and helped lead his team to a silver medal (Kasty led his team to Gold), he was outscored by a player drafted after him in the 1991 draft.

One of the most ingratiating characters on this kind of board is the armchair scout, one who sits on his fat azz every day in front of his computer screen declaring much too hastily that he knows which prospects are good and which ones are not, despite never seeing 99 per cent of them play a game. You are one of those characters.

turnbuckle* is offline